Closing the gap at Photokina.

I think that we must separate the FF issue and the dSLR/mirrorless issue.

In the latter there are advantages in both formats, and some pros reacted quick enough saying that they could use a proportion of 90% over10% of both.

Among the advantages of m4/3 much smaller teles. In theory FF can deal better with wides, but I wonder if short distance to flange won't create even worse problems at the edges.

Therefore it's much too soon to predict the disappearance of dSLR FF.

But m4/3 still retains a chance as everyman's camera.Just don't make it a luxury item.

Am.

azazel1024
wrote:

Yeah. I think the argument that "well if you release an ILC that takes legacy FF lenses native, than you have the issue of lens size still" is a little specious. Look at the Pentax solution. It isn't good.

It just ends up leaving the camera large. Stripping a mirror box and making a short register ILC FF camera doesn't really make the lenses smaller at all, it reduces the size of the camera body, but not the lenses...necessarily.

The best solution would be something like what Sony did with the NEX. New mount, and adapter that'll take A-mount lenses, with autofocus and develop all new lenses.

In this case you can use FF lenses with a simple adapter, they'll retain everything and then you develop some new lenses that will mount natively. Anything retrofocus can be made smaller/cheaper/better and anything else can at least be made such that you no longer need the adapter to make a slightly shorter overall lens/camera combo. You don't necessarily need to push out a bunch of lenses right away, as its not like the new lenses are likely to be massively smaller.

Oh, Leica mount lenses tend to be relatively compact, but they also do away with things such as autofocus, electronics, image stabalization, etc. They'd be a resonable amount bigger with that stuff added in.

A FF ILC system is still going to be a lot larger than an APS-C or m4/3 ILC system with lenses custom made for them. However, it could still be less costly than a FF dSLR system (a lot of lenses would be cheaper to make, at least wide angles would be and the body would be easier/cheaper to make) and some of the lenses could be smaller and more compact.

Also with EVF, you have WYSIWYG. I forget who's propaganda I was reading yesterday about how dSLRs are dead, long live dSLRs and the specious proposal that dSLRs somehow provide WYSIWYG. Compared to a modern ILC with a good EVF, they are MUCH further from WYSIWYG than an ILC. The screen can show you a pretty good representation of exactly what the exposure will be. A dSLR only provides you roughly with what your eye sees, not what the sensor will expose like.
--